I totally forgot to post this , my brother and I stopped in Seattle and saw it last summer

Tree of Life - 4.75/5

Loved it. Didn't quite loovvee it, but that might change with a second viewing. I got the blu for X-Mas so I'll post more thoughts on the themery and what not when I see it again.
Malick is the shit and everything he creates is so damn well done, perfectly planned and executed and beautifully paced from shot to shot to shot, where almost any moment can be paused and the screenshot turned into a mural... the cinematography was insane. The family parts were amazingly well done, I loved all if it. The narrative was great, and is generally one of my favorite aspects of Malick's films. The galactic opera creation scene induced slight teary eyed ness, it was amazingly beautiful. I'm very interested in the possible 6 hour cut I've heard of. But for what Malick did with cutting it down, I was enthralled. It's a bit uneven overall but being that I love his style, it totally worked for me.

Great look at a torn man's decisions in times of chaos in paradise. It's a drama with a lighthearted, slightly dark comedy feel to it but doesn't feel too serious. George's performance was great, it's one of the more enjoyable roles I've see him in, and Shailene Woodley (the daughter) is very cute and extremely talented, I think she's got a big future. Great story, great ending. I really enjoyed it but I don't think it was in the realm of "Best Picture" quality.

One of the saddest things about the movie industry is the reluctance to take risks. Studios know that if you release a comic book movie, it will make money. If you have success of any kind, don't be afraid to churn out several sequels. But the most disturbing thing of all is what passes for comedy in today's world.

Comedy is extremely subjective. What works for me might not work for others. If you examine the previous 61 titles in this 100 movies series, you won't find anything that is classified solely as a comedy. Films such as Amelie, As Good as It Gets and Midnight in Paris certainly have a great deal of comedic content, but they also contain dramatic elements.

It's not that I don't like to laugh or don't have a sense of humor, it's just unrealistic to me when a movie tries to tell a joke in every sentence. I'm too aware that I am being manipulated. Maybe it has something to do with my age, but I don't think it's funny watching people get hit in the genitals repeatedly or fail to make it to the bathroom in time. Innuendo or scatological humor ceased to make me laugh two or three decades ago. Physical humor can work, but it has to be executed well.

Why am I bothering to tell you this?

The six members of the Monty Python team make me laugh, despite using all of the techniques described above. I keep asking myself why that is, and I think it's a combination of things. The writing is superb and unpredictable. If I see a joke coming from a mile away, I'm not likely to find it funny. Even though most of Python's material is extremely silly, it has a kind of sophisticated brilliance.

Who else could reduce the Lady of the Lake myth to:

"Strange women lying in ponds, distributing swords, is no basis for a system of government."

There's also the problem of acting ability and comic timing. Good writing can be ruined by poor execution. My favorite comedians can all act, and some of my favorite comedy comes from actors better known for dramatic roles. Something inside me rears up when people tell me they enjoyed Jack and Jill, Little Man or The Love Guru. If that's your kind of humor, you probably won't get much out of this review.

People like to laugh and that's why they love comedies. It's easy to watch and doesn't require much thought. There's no possibility that you'll look bad in front of your friends because you failed to understand the plot - if there is a plot. If you miss a joke, you can catch it again when they repeat it for the fourth or fifth time. Most dumb comedies run out of ideas in the first 45 minutes and struggle to approach the minimum expected running time that audiences will consider acceptable.

Here's a thought: if you spend your time and money watching terrible comedies, the studios think they should make more because it's obviously successful. It doesn't matter whether the audience liked the movie as long as they paid to be there. That money could have gone to serious filmmakers with something to say.

Are you still reading?

Monty Python and the Holy Grail is complete nonsense. There is hardly any plot. The jokes are frequent and silly. But, somehow, it all works.

The plot, such as it is, shows King Arthur trying to recruit knights for his Round Table at Camelot. When they finally get there, they decide it's a silly place. God gives them something to do instead, by charging them with the task of finding the Holy Grail. It's all just an excuse for a series of loosely related sketches. The plot is almost completely irrelevant.

The humor is bizarre and it's written with a strange kind of flawed logic. You'll discover how to tell whether someone is a witch or a king, why you should never allow Lancelot to attend weddings, and how deadly white rabbits can be. There are a few oddly-placed songs, but listen to the lyrics and you'll probably laugh. The budget was too small to pay for real horses, so they just used coconuts. Don't expect a proper resolution. The story just stops dead in its tracks.

I've loved the humor of Monty Python since I was a child. Every member is likeable and the six have been responsible for some of the most quotable sketches ever made. Whether it's dead parrots, cheese shops, lumberjacks, silly walks, Yorkshiremen or spam, it never gets old for me. John Cleese was also responsible for Fawlty Towers, which, despite only running for 12 episodes, is one of the best comedies ever made.

Monty Python isn't for everyone. It's a very particular kind of British humor that some just won't get at all. Like the movie itself, this review just stops dead in its tracks.

If you like Monty Python and the Holy Grail:

Holy Grail is the best movie the Python's ever made, but Life of Brian is also worth your time. It tells the story of someone who was mistaken for the messiah.

I mentioned that most comedy falls flat for me unless it is contained within a drama. Here are a few exceptions:

Peter Sellers - The Pink Panther Series
Leslie Nielsen - The Naked Gun Series
Steve Martin - All of Me, The Man with Two Brains, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
John Belushi - Animal House, The Blues Brothers
Jacques Tati - Play Time and anything involving Monsieur Hulot

Most of my favorite comedies are TV shows rather than movies. Notables include:

A teenage girl, Makoto Konno, discovers that she can leap through time. She decides to do so somewhat frequently for a variety of personal reasons. Sometimes selfish reasons. Sometimes accidentally so. Sometimes Makoto's leaps lead to unintended consequences, which she tries in desparation to undo by leaping more, which leads to more....you get the idea.

The story was interesting and well told. The time travel jumps were edited well and added spice. I liked that it examined the morality of the lead characters choices and actions. The ending was strong and satisfying for me.

Animation was cool. Kinda had a blend of styles, though nothing groundbreaking or jawdropping. Simple yet elegant.

I listened to the English dub (which I tend to do for animated films) and it was damn good.

Score was great. Lots of emotional piano work.

Audio was great. Constant but very realistic use of surrounds really added to the ambience. Attention to detail was outstanding. Clothes moving, baseballs passing through the air and hitting gloves, footsteps etc. Dialogue was clear, potent and well proritized in the center channel.

Film 4/5
PQ 4/5
AQ 5/5

If you like animated stuff that leans towards a young adult audience, check it out.

[Show spoiler]
Squeezed one in between my Battlestar Galactica episodes.

I enjoyed it quite a bit.

A teenage girl, Makoto Konno, discovers that she can leap through time. She decides to do so somewhat frequently for a variety of personal reasons. Sometimes selfish reasons. Sometimes accidentally so. Sometimes Makoto's leaps lead to unintended consequences, which she tries in desparation to undo by leaping more, which leads to more....you get the idea.

The story was interesting and well told. The time travel jumps were edited well and added spice. I liked that it examined the morality of the lead characters choices and actions. The ending was strong and satisfying for me.

[Show spoiler]
Animation was cool. Kinda had a blend of styles, though nothing groundbreaking or jawdropping. Simple yet elegant.

I listened to the English dub (which I tend to do for animated films) and it was damn good.

Score was great. Lots of emotional piano work.

Audio was great. Constant but very realistic use of surrounds really added to the ambience. Attention to detail was outstanding. Clothes moving, baseballs passing through the air and hitting gloves, footsteps etc. Dialogue was clear, potent and well proritized in the center channel.

Film 4/5
PQ 4/5
AQ 5/5

If you like animated stuff that leans towards a young adult audience, check it out.

A teenage girl, Makoto Konno, discovers that she can leap through time. She decides to do so somewhat frequently for a variety of personal reasons. Sometimes selfish reasons. Sometimes accidentally so. Sometimes Makoto's leaps lead to unintended consequences, which she tries in desparation to undo by leaping more, which leads to more....you get the idea.

The story was interesting and well told. The time travel jumps were edited well and added spice. I liked that it examined the morality of the lead characters choices and actions. The ending was strong and satisfying for me.

Animation was cool. Kinda had a blend of styles, though nothing groundbreaking or jawdropping. Simple yet elegant.

I listened to the English dub (which I tend to do for animated films) and it was damn good.

Score was great. Lots of emotional piano work.

Audio was great. Constant but very realistic use of surrounds really added to the ambience. Attention to detail was outstanding. Clothes moving, baseballs passing through the air and hitting gloves, footsteps etc. Dialogue was clear, potent and well proritized in the center channel.

Film 4/5
PQ 4/5
AQ 5/5

If you like animated stuff that leans towards a young adult audience, check it out.

I want to give you a hard time about this but I still haven't seen Room in Rome

Such a stunning film, if one does not look at the nudity as simply a way to look at naked women for an hour and a half and realizes its point is to show the two characters baring themselves completely to one another. I miss that film.

Do you remember a time when science fiction movies relied on a strong story rather than showy special effects? That's what Moon achieves. Most of the acting is performed by Sam Rockwell, although he interacts with the voice of Kevin Spacey and a couple of other actors.

The setting is the far side of the moon and Sam Bell (Rockwell) is mining for Helium 3, which supplies 70 percent of Earth's energy needs. His only companion is GERTY (Spacey), who resembles the HAL 9000 computer from 2001: A Space Odyssey. Sam spends his free time working out and carving a model village. He is two weeks away from the end of his 3-year contract and is excited about returning to Earth and seeing his wife and daughter.

One day, while Sam is performing routine maintenance on one of the mining harvesters, he crashes. If you were the only human being within 300,000 miles, that could be quite a problem. But, somehow, Sam wakes up in the infirmary with GERTY explaining that he has suffered an accident. How did GERTY rescue him? Did someone from Earth recover Sam, or was the event dreamed or imagined? Is Sam starting to hallucinate or go crazy after three years of isolation?

There are many subtle audio and visual clues to what is really happening, but you might miss most of them on first viewing. When you know the film's secrets, little details take on additional meaning. Note also how Jones uses what we know about 2001: A Space Odyssey, and the kind of character Spacey usually portrays, to bring us to certain conclusions about GERTY.

We spend the first 28 minutes of the film seeing how Sam lives. At that point, something happens which changes the feel of the entire film. Events start to become much clearer. I'm reluctant to spoil the reveal for anyone who hasn't seen the film, so I'm not going to discuss the plot any further.

Rockwell delivers a wonderful performance as the multifaceted Sam. His isolation reminds me of Cast Away, 127 Hours and I Am Legend. The film examines the psychological effects of being alone and the difficulty in dealing with the outside world when that isolation finally ends. There are also deeper themes such as morality and our fundamental freedom.

When I look at the 2010 Oscar nominees, I have to wonder how District 9 was nominated ahead of Moon. It's also surprising that Rockwell missed out on a Best Actor nomination.

The budget was just $5 million, and the film looks incredible when you consider how little was spent. At no time did I think anything looked unconvincing or that I wasn't on the Moon. Clint Mansell's score was also noteworthy and set the mood perfectly. Moon is told in such a subtle way, but the tension slowly builds and creeps up on you. It's a very intelligent piece of writing by Director Duncan Jones.

If you enjoy classic science fiction and good acting, Moon is worth checking out.

If you like Moon:

Duncan Jones was given a $32 million budget for his next film, Source Code. It's a science fiction thriller starring Jake Gyllenhaal, Vera Farmiga and Michelle Monaghan. It shares some of the themes present in Moon, such as freedom, morality, and key female characters appearing on a screen. Both films will make you think and the scripts are always intelligent. If Duncan Jones continues to progress at this rate, he could become the next Christopher Nolan. It's so refreshing to watch good science fiction that doesn't rely solely on special effects.

Hey, no comments about the Oscar wins? Your (pre ceremony) ranking list didnt include The Artist. Did you see it?

hahaha

As for the Oscars, there weren't many surprises so there's not too much to say. Tree of Life missing out on cinematography to Hugo is an embarrassment to the awards, although I'm watching Hugo tonite for the first time so maybe I'll retract that statement. But considering Tree of Life has some of the best cinematography not only of the year, but of all-time leads me to believe otherwise. I was glad to see Meryl Streep win since although Viola Davis was good, her performance was not good enough to win best actress.

My comments are really about the people and films that should have been nominated but weren't, which I posted at some point.

I haven't seen the Artist or Hugo or The Descendants, although I will be seeing Hugo tonite. I'll revise my list after seeing those three and Take Shelter, as well as A Separation. At that point I think I would have seen pretty much all the major films.

As for the Oscars, there weren't many surprises so there's not too much to say. Tree of Life missing out on cinematography to Hugo is an embarrassment to the awards, although I'm watching Hugo tonite for the first time so maybe I'll retract that statement. But considering Tree of Life has some of the best cinematography not only of the year, but of all-time leads me to believe otherwise. I was glad to see Meryl Streep win since although Viola Davis was good, her performance was not good enough to win best actress.

My comments are really about the people and films that should have been nominated but weren't, which I posted at some point.

I haven't seen the Artist or Hugo or The Descendants, although I will be seeing Hugo tonite. I'll revise my list after seeing those three and Take Shelter, as well as A Separation. At that point I think I would have seen pretty much all the major films.

I agree with most of what you said, though I'm not a big fan of it, Tree of Life deserved that Oscar fair and square and I was very dissapointed with the choice the Oscars went for. I also highly suspect you would really love The Artist

so i have this thing in my house. it's called a shelf. and it has these blue cases with artwork on them. and apparently when i put them in my PS3 they show up on my TV and they make noise and the picture moves! i think i used to know what they are... yes, i think we call them "movies" or more specifically, "movies on blu-ray"...

okay, bad attempt at humor is done.

finally watched some movies again!

Nick & Norah's Infinite Playlist

still love it. some great dialogue and just an overall very fun, while oddly "gritty" movie. and by "gritty" i mean there are no brand new Ferrari's being driven by early college kids. everyone (mostly) looks the age group and whatnot.

5/5 still

Drive

damn did i enjoy this a lot more on a second viewing. definite keeper.

Mulholland Dr. is a wild ride and it's best to experience it without knowing anything the first time you see it. The plot is non-linear and the ending isn't typical Hollywood fare. Most of my friends hated it and thought it was a waste of their time, but for those who like it, the experience is up there with the best that film has to offer.

If you are analytical and curious enough to watch the film two or three times in quick succession, you're the type of person who may end up loving this film. If you haven't seen it and think you fit that description, I hope you will give it a try.

Mulholland Dr. is my favorite film of all time.

The story is full of mystery and unfolds like a detective story for the first two-thirds of the film. Betty (Naomi Watts), an aspiring actress, wins a jitterbug contest and uses it as an opportunity to fly to Los Angeles to seek out an acting career. Immediately after, we see a car crash in which Rita (Laura Harring) suffers amnesia and seeks refuge in the home where Betty is staying. The two soon meet and Betty tries to help Rita remember who she is.

The film was intended to be a television series and the first two acts were formed by the aborted pilot. Eventually, new funding allowed Lynch to finish the film and it evolved into an entirely different story. As the story progresses, the distinction between dream and reality becomes increasingly blurred.

This is a complex puzzle that is very hard to take in on the first viewing and is therefore not for everyone. It's probably impossible to enjoy every aspect of the film the first time you see it because key information in the final act changes your perception of everything that comes before. If you enjoy mysteries and being confused and unsettled, it may interest you. If you like fast-paced action and straightforward stories wrapped up neatly by the end of the movie, you probably won’t appreciate the film

It changed the way I watch movies.

This is the kind of film that possesses you. The best way to view it is to let it carry you along and wash over you. Save your analysis for repeat viewings. And if you have an inquisitive mind, there will be many repeat viewings.

I first saw this film without understanding all of it, but I found myself going over it in my mind and watching it again the next day. Then I wanted to tell all my friends about it. Over time, it has surpassed everything I have ever seen. It’s full of intrigue and makes me feel so many different emotions. It’s quite brilliant and Lynch’s best work, although all of his projects are valuable and important.

Watching one of Lynch’s films takes you on a journey into a different world. There’s something not quite right with that world, but it’s hard to identify exactly what it is. It all contributes to the feeling of unease. In Mulholland Dr., he uses interesting camera angles to show you a glimpse of what is ahead. As a result, you become part of the story and see it unfold as the main characters do. A good example if the scene in the diner and the events that immediately follow.

There’s a lot going on in this strange world. We are shown several different characters, initially unconnected, with no explanation of their overall role in the story. This probably happened because the threads were meant to be explored further in the television series. You will meet film directors, detectives, a hit man, and a whole host of minor characters.

The film is punctuated by moments of bizarre humor. Some of the comedic scenes make me laugh out loud, and that’s not an easy thing to achieve. There are also moments of violence and mystery and, ultimately, true desolation. These elements are present in most Lynch films and will feel familiar if you know his work.

The final act turns everything on its head. Betty and Rita become Diane and Camilla. It’s initially confusing, but everything becomes clear when you think about what you have seen and felt.

Naomi Watts gives the performance of her career thus far. The first two acts show her as almost impossibly bubbly as she helps her friend search for her identity. The final act sees Watts portraying complete desolation as we learn the truth about her character. Even though you know she plays both Betty and Diane, it appears as though they are played by different actresses. I would like to go back in time and correct some of the Oscar decisions, and one of the first things I would do is reward Watts for one of the best performances I have seen in any film.

Lynch creates a mood better than any director I have ever seen. The colors, settings and actions of the characters all enhance the atmospheric presentation, and Angelo Badalamenti’s haunting score completes the experience. Mulholland Dr. has many of the elements that made Twin Peaks my favorite television show of all time. If you like one, you will almost certainly like the other.

The film is full of symbol and metaphor and has an underlying theme which examines the Hollywood industry as a whole.

I’m not going to expand any further on the plot, such as it is, because it may put you off seeing the film. It’s complex, but it’s very rewarding when you examine the experience after the fact. It’s the kind of film that encourages people to develop their own theories. Lynch refuses to explain it, preferring that you develop your own idea about what it means to you.

The film can be viewed as a series of interesting scenes. In fact, that’s probably a good way to view it for the first time. The final act isn’t a predictable occurrence. If you’re someone that finds that refreshing, like me, then you should check out Mulholland Dr. if you haven’t already done so. Several film magazines voted it the best film of the last decade. It’s certainly something that can be appreciated even if you have other favorites.

If you like Mulholland Dr.:

There's no other director quite like David Lynch. His films are challenging and they don't feel the need to spell everything out for the audience. If you are open to that kind of experience, Lost Highway is another film dealing with the loss of identity. It's a little messy and doesn't flow quite as well as Mulholland Dr., but you can see where Lynch got the idea to explore identity. These themes are also present in Blue Velvet and Inland Empire.

I wouldn't recommend seeing Inland Empire before Lost Highway or Mulholland Dr. because it works better if you understand the themes explored in Lynch's earlier work.

If you have 22 hours to spare, I would also urge you to check out Twin Peaks. It changed TV back in 1990 and it's still unmatched in my opinion. The blend of humor and drama is just about perfect. You'll laugh often and some parts are genuinely frightening. Angelo Badalamenti's music is present throughout and the whole experience really is like stepping into another reality.

Might have to watch the full thing later on, but on first glance, I'm just a little put off by the god-awful dubbing, the cheesy acting, the fake-looking model of Hong Kong, and the way they ripped off "Star Wars" music for the main logos. Still looks entertaining with all the cheesy fights.

so i have this thing in my house. it's called a shelf. and it has these blue cases with artwork on them. and apparently when i put them in my PS3 they show up on my TV and they make noise and the picture moves! i think i used to know what they are... yes, i think we call them "movies" or more specifically, "movies on blu-ray"...

Strange, I seem to have these so-called "movies" as well...on shelves...

Might have to watch the full thing later on, but on first glance, I'm just a little put off by the god-awful dubbing, the cheesy acting, the fake-looking model of Hong Kong, and the way they ripped off "Star Wars" music for the main logos. Still looks entertaining with all the cheesy fights.

LOL. As soon as I saw Foggys review I thought "Al would probably love that, oh wait, Al may already OWN it."

Might have to watch the full thing later on, but on first glance, I'm just a little put off by the god-awful dubbing, the cheesy acting, the fake-looking model of Hong Kong, and the way they ripped off "Star Wars" music for the main logos. Still looks entertaining with all the cheesy fights.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

LOL. As soon as I saw Foggys review I thought "Al would probably love that, oh wait, Al may already OWN it."

It's definitely an Al movie...speaking of which...

This Means War

When the cheesy micro-budget 80's film you watch for free on Youtube is more investing than the Hollywood blockbuster you watch at the cinema, you know you're in trouble

Ah, that time of the year when a certain relative wants to watch a film you've got a gut feeling won't be worth the money you spend on it This time it was the Father who wanted to watch this chick-flick (He was either majorly confused about the film or felt like he needed to put me through the gay test). The real reason is actually that when I dragged him to watch Chronicle we saw the 9-Minute long preview (which were the best parts wrapped into 9 mins shockingly enough) and since then all I've heard was "that film with those two spies looks good!".

Anyway he came into my room asking to go watch, which is a rarity since he couldn't give a crap about anything that's coming out at the cinema unless it involves Cowboys in since he's a big western fanboy, and I decided that I might as well go since he'll enjoy it.

Which sets up nicely the fact that this film isn't for me, this film didn't look too bad to me though, I like Tom Hardy, I like Chris Pine and I like a more manly rom-com. Reviews where understandable harsh but I could push them aside since I don't get too snobby around cookie-cutter entertainment.

What I do get snobby about is when your cookie cutter entertainment is BBBBOOOOOORIIINGGGG!!!!!

It comes down to two things. Firstly, the film is about predictable as you can get, as safe as you can get. The villain is foreign, the characters are constantly being told to you, the plot is laid out, with labels to make sure the dumb can keep up. One of the most blatant plot descriptions is when the head of the department of whatever part of the C.I.A this is says "You where supposed to kill both the brothers, don't you know that he's going to come back and get revenge now" what the hell makes her presume that, this is clearly set in movie land and it doesn't even hide it.

Secondly, it's just plain patronising, the film knows no subtlety, the two main protagonists fall out so easily that it's hard to believe that they were actually friends at the beginning of the film, no matter how hard the film tells us. But the worst offender is Recce Witherspoon's annoying BFF.

She's everything you don't want from a female character in a film, she's just plain ugly, she's an alcoholic who drinks all the time when she's with her children. She says the most vulgar things and, as much as we're told Witherspoon's character is strong and independent, she comes to this dumbass bint for help and the film even tells her us knows nothing about relationships.

Throw in some stereotypes and you have a healthy dose of fatty artificial fast food filmmaking

Well, that's not the whole story, I didn't hate the film, like I said there were one or two funny parts that caught me off guard (that wasn't a part of 9 minute preview). The chemistry between Pine and Hardy is good enough to keep you invested and your generic action sub-plot is a bit shitty, but the action isn't too hard to watch though it lasts less than 10 mins, and will be nothing you can get anywhere else.

But as whole, if you rented this, you'd still be rather bored by it and possible give up before the end.

But, if you want a fair, non-cynical review of the film, the film got some big laughs from the audience (although not that many, and as I said, nothing that wasn't in the 9-minute trailer) they seemed a bit bored with it like me, although none of them seemed to dislike it, they just seemed like they had an adequate Saturday night out

And finally the views of the man behind the reivew. The father!

He said that the film was good, it was a good laugh in parts and was disappointed with the lack of action, although his tone of voice sadly seemed like he was a bit more disappointed with the film than he wanted to let on.